[racket] Macro question - `let' without inferring name?

Cool, thanks!

Erik

On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Eric Dobson <eric.n.dobson at gmail.com> wrote:

> How about:
> 
> (define-syntax (m stx)
>  (syntax-case stx ()
>    [(m expr)
>     #'(let ([t (values expr)])
>         ;; ....
>         t)]))
> 
> Which seems to work for me.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Erik Silkensen <eriksilkensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm wondering if there's any way to have a macro like
>> 
>> (define-syntax (m stx)
>>  (syntax-case stx ()
>>    [(m expr)
>>     #'(let ([t expr])
>>         ;; ....
>>         t)]))
>> 
>> that binds expr to t, does some things, and then somehow returns t -- but with whatever name would have been inferred for expr without the let, and not 't' (if that makes sense?)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Erik
>> ____________________
>>  Racket Users list:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users